From last week’s blog post, we discussed how bio based plastics do indeed save energy during the production of the polymers, and produce fewer greenhouse gasses during the process. Yet right off the bat, it could be argued that carbon footprints may be an irrelevant measurement, because it has been established that plants grow more quickly and are more drought and heat resistant in a CO2 enriched atmosphere! Many studies have shown that worldwide food production has risen, possibly by as much as 40%, due to the increase in atmospheric CO2 levels.[1] Therefore, it is both ironic and a significant potential problem for biopolymer production if the increased CO2 emissions from human activity were rolled back, causing worldwide plant growth to decline. This in turn would greatly increase the competition for biological sources of food and fuel – with biopolymers coming in last place.[2] But that’s probably really stretching the point.

The development of bioplastics holds the potential of renewability, biodegradation, and a path away from harmful additives. They are not, however, an automatic panacea. Although plant-based plastics appeal to green-minded consumers thanks to their renewable origins, their production carries environmental costs that make them less green than they may seem. It’s important to remember that bioplastics, just like regular plastics, are synthetic polymers; it’s just that plants are being used instead of oil to obtain the carbon and hydrogen needed for polymerization.

It’s good marketing, but bad honesty, as they say, because there are so many types of plastics and bioplastics that you don’t know what you’re getting in to; bioplastics are much more complicated than biofuels. There are about two dozen different ways to create a bioplastic, and each one has different properties and capabilities.

Actually the term “bioplastic” is pretty meaningless, because some bioplastics are actually made from oil – they’re called “bioplastics” because they are biodegradeable. That causes much confusion because plastics made from oil can be biodegradeable whereas some plant-based bioplastics are not. So the term bioplastics can refer either to the raw material (biomass) or, in the case of oil-based plastic, to its biodegradability. The problem with biodegradability and compostability is that there is no agreement as to what that actually means either, and under what circumstances

You might also see the term “oxo-degradable”. Oxo-degradables look like plastic, but they are not. It is true that the material falls apart, but that is because it contains metal salts which cause it to disintegrate rapidly into tiny particles. Then you cannot see it anymore, but it is still there, in the ocean too. Just as with conventional plastics, these oxo-degradables release harmful substances when they are broken down.

Let’s re-visit some of the reasons bioplastics are supposed to be an environmental benefit:

Because it’s made from plants, which are organic, they’re good for the planet. Polymer bonds can be created from oil, gas or plant materials. The use of plant materials does not imply that the resulting polymer will be organic or more environmentally friendly. You could make non-biodegradable, toxic plastic out of organic corn!

Bioplastics are biodegradable. Although made from materials that can biodegrade, the way that material is turned into plastic makes it difficult (if not impossible) for the materials to naturally break down. There are bioplastics made from vegetable matter (maize or grass, for example) which are no more biodegradable than any other plastics, says Christiaan Bolck of Food & Biobased Research.[3] Bioplastics do not universally biodegrade in normal conditions – some require special, rare conditions to decompose, such as high heat composting facilities, while others may simply take decades or longer to break down again, mitigating the supposed benefits of using so-called compostable plastics material. There are no independent standards for what even constitutes “biodegradable plastic.” Sorona makes no claim to break down in the environment; Ingeo is called “compostable” (though it can only be done in industrial high heat composters). Close studies of so-called degradable plastics have shown that some only break down to plastic particles which are so small they can’t be seen (“out of sight, out of mind”), which are more easily ingested by animals. Indeed, small plastic fragments of this type may also be better able to attract and concentrate pollutants such as DDT and PCB.[4]

Bioplastics are recyclable. Because bioplastics come in dozens of varieties, there’s no way to make sure you’re getting the right chemicals in the recycling vat – so although some bioplastics are recyclable, the recycling facilities won’t separate them out. Cargill Natureworks insists that PLA can in theory be recycled, but in reality it is likely to be confused with polyethylene terephthalate (PET). In October 2004, a group of recyclers and recycling advocates issued a joint call for Natureworks to stop selling PLA for bottle applications until the recycling questions were addressed.[5] But the company claims that levels of PLA in the recycling stream are too low to be considered a contaminant. The process of recycling bioplastics is cumbersome and expensive – they present a real problem for recyclers because they cannot be handled using conventional processes. Special equipment and facilities are often needed. Moreover, if bioplastics commingle with traditional plastics, they contaminate all of the other plastics, which forces waste management companies to reject batches of otherwise recyclable materials.

Bioplastics are non-toxic. Because they’re not made from toxic inputs (as are oil based plastics), bioplastics have the reputation for being non toxic. But we’re beginning to see the same old toxic chemicals produced from a different (plant-based) source of carbon.Example: Solvay’s bio-based PVC uses phthalates, requires chlorine during production, and produces dioxins during manufacture, recycling and disposal. As one research group commissioned by the European Bioplastics Association was forced to admit, with regard to PVC, “The use of bio-based ethylene is … unlikely to reduce the environmental impact of PVC with respect to its toxicity potential.[6]

The arguments against supporting bioplastics include the fact that they are corporate owned, they compete with food, they bolster industrial agriculture and lead us deeper into genetic engineering, synthetic biology and nanotechnology. I am not with those who think we shouldn’t go there, because we sorely need scientific inquiry and eventually we might even get it right. But, for example, today’s industrial agriculture is not, in my opinion, sustainable, and the genetic engineering we’re doing is market driven with no altruistic motive.

If properly designed, biodegradable plastics have the potential to become a much-preferred alternative to conventional plastics. The Sustainable Biomaterials Collaborative (SBC)[7] is a coalition of organizations that advances the introduction and use of biobased products. They seek to replace dependence on materials made from harmful fossil fuels with a new generation of materials made from plants – but the shift they propose is more than simply a change of materials. They promote (according to their website): sustainability standards, practical tools, and effective policies to drive and shape the emerging markets for these products. They also refer to “sustainable bioplastics” rather than simply “bioplastics”. In order to be a better choice, these sustainable bioplastics must be:

Derived from non-food, non-GMO source materials – like algae rather than GMO corn, or from sustainably grown and harvested cropland or forests;

Safe for the environment during use;

Truly compostable and biodegradable;

Free of toxic chemicals during the manufacturing and recycling process;

Manufactured without hazardous inputs and impacts (water, land and chemical use are considerations);

Recyclable in a cradle-to-cradle cycle.

Currently, manufacturers are not responsible for the end-life of their products. Once an item leaves their factories, it’s no longer the company’s problem. Therefore, we don’t have a system by which adopters of these new bioplastics would be responsible for recovering, composting, recycling, or doing whatever needs to be done with them after use. Regarding toxicity, the same broken and ineffective regulatory system is in charge of approving bioplastics for food use, and there is no reason to assume that these won’t raise just as many health concerns as conventional plastics have. Yet again, it will be an uphill battle to ban those that turn out to be dangerous.

A study published in Environmental Science & Technology traces the full impact of plastic production all the way back to its source for several types of plastics.[8] Study author Amy Landis of the University of Pittsburgh says, “The main concern for us is that these plant-derived products have a green stamp on them just because they’re derived from biomass. It’s not true that they should be considered sustainable. Just because they’re plants doesn’t mean they’re green.”

The researchers found that while making bioplastics requires less fossil fuel and has a lower impact on global warming, they have higher impacts for eutrophication, eco-toxicity and production of human carcinogens. These impacts came largely from fertilizer use, pesticide use and conversion of lands to agricultural fields, along with processing the bio-feedstocks into plastics, the authors reported.

According to the study, polypropylene topped the team’s list as having the least life-cycle impact, while PVC and PET (polyethylene terephthalate) were ranked as having the highest life-cycle impact.

But as the Plastic Pollution Coalition tells us, it’s not so much changing the material itself that needs changing – it’s our uses of the stuff itself. We are the problem: If we continue to buy single-use disposable objects such as plastic bottles and plastic bags, with almost 7 billion people on the planet, our throwaway culture will continue to harm the environment, no matter what it’s made of.

The Surfrider Foundation

The Surfrider Foundation has a list of ten easy things you can do to keep plastics out of our environment:

Choose to reuse when it comes to shopping bags and bottled water. Cloth bags and metal or glass reusable bottles are available locally at great prices.

Reduce everyday plastics such as sandwich bags and juice cartons by replacing them with a reusable lunch bag/box that includes a thermos.

Bring your to-go mug with you to the coffee shop, smoothie shop or restaurants that let you use them. A great way to reduce lids, plastic cups and/or plastic-lined cups.

Go digital! No need for plastic cds, dvds and jewel cases when you can buy your music and videos online.

Seek out alternatives to the plastic items that you rely on.

Recycle. If you must use plastic, try to choose #1 (PETE) or #2 (HDPE), which are the most commonly recycled plastics. Avoid plastic bags and polystyrene foam as both typically have very low recycling rates.

Spread the word. Talk to your family and friends about why it is important to Rise Above Plastics!

[1] See for example: Idso, Craig, “Estimates of Global Food Production in the year 2050”, Center for the Study of Carbon dioxide and Global Change, 2011 AND Wittwer, Sylvan, “Rising Carbon Dioxide is Great for Plants”, Policy Review, 1992 AND http://www.ciesin.org/docs/004-038/004-038a.html

For tens of thousands of years, humans relied on nature to provide them with everything they needed to make their lives more comfortable -cotton and wool for clothes, wood for furniture, clay and ceramic for storage containers, even plants for medicines. But this all changed during the first half of the twentieth century, when organic chemistry developed methods to create many of these products from oil. Oil-derived synthetic polymers, colored with artificial dyes, soon replaced their precursors from the natural world.

But today, with growing concerns about the dependence on imported oil and the awareness that the world’s oil supplies are not limitless, coupled with stricter environmental regulations, chemical and biotechnology industries are exploring nature’s richness in search of methods to replace petroleum-based synthetics. As with other forms of biotechnology, industrial biotech involves engineering biological molecules and microbes with desirable new properties. What is different is how they are then used: to replace chemical processes with biological ones. Whether this is to produce chemicals for other processes or to create products such as biopolymers with new properties, there is a huge effort to harness biology to accomplish what previously needed big, dirty chemical factories, but in cleaner and greener ways.

The public has for a long time perceived biotechnology to mean dangerous meddling with the genes in food and fiber crops. But biotechnology is about much more than transgenic crops – it also uses microbes to make pharmaceuticals, for example. Industrial biotechnology is known as “white” biotechnology, as distinct from “red” biotechnology, which is devoted to medical and pharmaceutical purposes, and “green” biotechnology, or the application of biotechnology in agriculture.

From: EuropaBio

Today, the application of biotechnology to industrial processes holds many promises for sustainable development. One of the first goals on white biotechnology’s agenda has been the production of biodegradable plastics, and in textiles, DuPont has invested much in the production of textile fibers from corn sugar (Sorona ®) while Cargill Dow has introduced NatureWorks ™, a polymer made from lactic acid which is used in textiles under the brand name Ingeo ®. And these new processes have resulted in considerable environmental benefits: In the case of Sorona ®, for example, DuPont was able to replace the toxic elements of ethylene glycol and carbon monoxide in typical PET fibers with benign corn sugars.

But there are challenges pertaining to these new bioplastics, and the evidence that they’re actually better for the planet is hotly debated. As Jim Thomas argues in the New Internationalist online magazine:

Strictly speaking a bioplastic is a polymer that has been produced from a plant instead of from petroleum. That is neither a new breakthrough nor a guarantee of ecological soundness. The earliest plastics such as celluloid were made from tree cellulose before petroleum proved itself a cheaper source. Today, with oil prices skyrocketing, it’s cheaper feedstock – not green principles – that is driving chemical companies back to bio-based plastics. Bioplastics may bring in the greenbacks for investors but are they actually green for the planet? The evidence is not convincing. For a start bioplastics may or may not be degradable or biodegradable – two terms that mean very different things. Many bio-based plastics – like DuPont’s Sorona – make no claims to break down in the environment. So much for disposal. But replacing fossil fuels with plants has to be a good idea, right? This is the premise on which the green claims of bioplastics mostly rest. Unfortunately, as advocates of biofuels have learned, switching from oil to biomass as the feedstock of our industrial economy carries its own set of problems. Like hunger.

There is nothing sustainable or organic about most industrial agriculture feedstocks. At present genetically modified corn grown using pesticides is probably the leading source of starch for bioplastics. The link between genetic contamination and bioplastics is strong.

As concerns mount, the Sustainable Biomaterials Collaborative (SBC) – a network of 16 civil society groups and ethical businesses – is working to define a truly sustainable bioplastic. One of its founders, Tom Lent, explains that the SBC started because ‘the promise of bioplastics was not being realized’.

But biotechnology is not just about bioplastics – it’s actually mostly, these days, about enzymes. Biotechnology can provide an unlimited and pure source of enzymes as an alternative to the harsh chemicals traditionally used in industry for accelerating chemical reactions. Enzymes are found in naturally occurring microorganisms, such as bacteria, fungi, and yeast, all of which may or may not be genetically modified. (We’ll come back to this important point later.)

But what are enzymes?

Enzymes are large protein molecules that act as catalysts – substances that start or accelerate chemical reactions without themselves being affected — and help complex reactions occur everywhere in life. By their mere presence, and without being consumed in the process, enzymes can speed up chemical processes – reactions occur about a million times faster than they would in the absence of an enzyme. In principle, these reactions could go on forever, but in practice most enzymes have a limited life. There are many factors that can regulate enzyme activity, including temperature, activators, pH levels, and inhibitors.

Enzymes play a diversified role in many aspects of everyday life including aiding in digestion and the production of food as well as in industrial applications. Enzymes are nature’s catalysts. Humankind has used them for thousands of years to carry out important chemical reactions for making products such as cheese, beer, and wine. Bread and yogurt also owe their flavor and texture to a range of enzyme producing organisms that were domesticated many years ago.

Enzymes are categorized according to the compounds they act upon. Some of the most common include:

proteases which break down proteins,

cellulases which break down cellulose,

lipases which split fats (lipids) into glycerol and fatty acids, and

amylases which break down starch into simple sugars. Human saliva, for example, contains amylase, an enzyme that helps break down starchy foods into sugars.

In textile treatment, the first enzyme applications, as early as 1857, was the use of barley for removal of starchy size from woven fabrics. The first microbial amylases were used in the 1950s for the same desizing process, which today is routinely used by the industry.

Enzymes are now widely used to prepare the fabrics that your clothing, furniture and other household items are made of. Increasing demands to reduce pollution caused by the textile industry has fueled biotechnological advances that have replaced harsh chemicals with enzymes in many textile manufacturing processes. The use of enzymes not only make the process less toxic (by substituting enzymatic treatments for harmful chemical treatments) and eco-friendly, they reduce costs associated with the production process, and consumption of natural resources (water, electricity, fuels), while also improving the quality of the final textile product.

But how do they work?

Rader’s Chem4Kids.com website has a great explanation, which I’ve quoted below:

Think of enzymes as similar to keys which can open locks. Just as when you need a key that is just the right shape to fit in a particular lock, enzymes complete very specific jobs and do nothing else.

From: Chem4Kids

They are very specific locks and the compounds they work with are the special keys. In the same way there are door keys, car keys, and bike-lock keys, there are enzymes for neural cells, intestinal cells, and your saliva.

Here’s the deal: there are four steps in the process of an enzyme working.

An enzyme and a substrate are in the same area. The substrate is the biological molecule that the enzyme will attack.

The enzyme grabs onto the substrate with a special area called the active site. The active site is a specially shaped area of the enzyme that fits around the substrate. The active site is the keyhole of the lock.

A process called catalysis happens. Catalysis is when the substrate is changed. It could be broken down or combined with another molecule to make something new.

Then the enzyme lets go. When the enzyme lets go, it returns to normal, ready to do another reaction. But the substrate is no longer the same – the substrate is now called the product.

Next, well take a look at how enzymes are helping to make the textile industry’s environmental footprint a bit more benign.

Email Subscription

Subscribe to our Blog

Two Sisters on a Mission.

Patty and Leigh Anne founded this company to make the whole world safer while making our personal environments more beautiful.

After forming O Ecotextiles in 2004, they began a world-wide search for manufacturing partners interested in a cradle-to-cradle process of creating no-impact, perfectly safe, incredibly luxurious fabrics.

They began working with people around the world: Romanian farmers who dew- or field-ret hemp stalks; a Japanese mill owner committed to “green” processes, even new methods such as using ozone to bleach fabric; a 100-year-old Italian mill that produces no wastewater; a Chilean mill shifting to entirely green processes; an Italian dye house that produces biodegradable, heavy-metal free textiles.